The Thing (1982) *****

Best! Movie! Ever! I can’t believe I went all these years without seeing John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” I’m just glad that I rectified the situation before wasting any more of my life!

 Based on a short story called “Who Goes There?” and an earlier movie called “The Thing From Another World,” “The Thing” is, like “Alien,” a satisfying blend of horror and sci-fi. The film starts with a couple of Norwegians in a helicopter pursuing and trying to kill a dog as it runs across the ice fields of Antarctica. The Norwegians wind up dead, and the dog finds refuge with a group of American scientists in a remote outpost. Curious as to what those crazy Norwegians were up to, the Americans, including helicopter pilot MacReady (Kurt Russell), go investigate their camp. There they find that the Norwegians discovered something in the ice. Something that left them all dead. Meanwhile, the guys learn to their horror that the refugee dog is not a dog at all, but an alien mutant that infects other life forms with a virus-like vector that takes over all their cells and allows the alien to imitate them. This is horrible enough, but the real terror begins when paranoia takes hold, as the men realize that at least one of them may have been taken over by the Thing.

 Like the best horror films, “The Thing” uses a grotesque monster to explore the horrors that we all carry inside us. First, the gore and slime remind us that we and those we love are full of blood and guts on the inside: a disturbing concept. Then the film plays on the more subtle fear that those we know may not be who we think they are, that they may carry some terrible secret. As shocking as the Thing is when it is spewing slime everywhere, it is the growing distrust between the men that creates the real horror in “The Thing.” There is another element of horror in “The Thing,” perhaps unintentional. The movie is about a virus-like life form that fatally takes over someone’s body and can be passed to others, yet you can’t tell by looking who has it. Given that this came out in 1982, one can’t help but draw parallels to a real-life horror, the AIDS epidemic.

 Many movies from the ‘80’s haven’t aged well, but “The Thing” seems timeless. It helps that the clothing is cold-weather gear rather than day-glow sweaters and polos. It helps that the cast is all men, so the plot isn’t weighed down by an obligatory love story. It helps that rather than a soundtrack of ‘80’s pop, the film has a beautiful, ominous score by Ennio Morricone. It helps that the characters in this horrifying situation mostly make decisions that make sense, separating this film from about 90% of horror movies. Finally, it helps that Carpenter played the story straight and didn’t try to cutesy it up with the catchy one-liners that were de rigueur in ‘80’s horror and action flicks. Carpenter had some help, of course, from a stellar cast, including Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, a whole crew of outstanding character actors, and one outrageous hat.

 Some might disagree, but I even found the special effects to be good. I don’t think the creature would have been any more convincing or terrifying if it had been done with modern CGI. I think one reason I never saw the movie before was that I somehow got the impression it was a schlocky, low budget flick. It is neither. This was apparently Carpenter’s first studio film, and very professionally done. It’s ironic that the movie did not do well at the box office, possibly because it was released right after “E.T.: The Extraterrestrial,” and audiences weren’t up for a second, diametrically opposed, alien movie.

 Fortunately, the film has been vindicated by history, and we can watch it now and feel smug about being smarter than those 1982 audiences that missed it. I suggest watching it on a cold night. I also recommend the commentary by John Carpenter and Kurt Russell.

 5 stars out of 5

 Addendum: I tried to watch the 1951 movie "The Thing from Another World," which is also based on John W. Campbell Jr's story "Who Goes There?", but I gave up after 20 minutes or so. It just isn't up to the standards of John Carpenter's "The Thing."

Real Steel (2011) **

This movie is a good example of how looking at movie reviews can get you in trouble. My instincts told me that a movie about boxing robots is just obviously going to be ridiculous and not worth my time. At some point, however, I read a couple of reviews that acknowledged the seemingly silly premise of the film, but said it was really worth seeing. That’s how it wound up on my Netflix queue and how I wasted an hour watching half of it.

The premise is that in the near future, human boxing is replaced by robot boxing, which is able to be much more violent and destructive. Referees in human bouts have a nasty habit of stopping a fight before someone has, say, their arm ripped off, but that’s not a problem in robot boxing. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie, one of the human handlers who control the fighting ‘bots. Charlie was once a promising boxer himself, and somewhere along the way his unfulfilled potential has made him a bitter ne’er-do-well. He finds a way to blow every opportunity that comes his way, including the grudging affection of the gorgeous robot mechanic he grew up with (Evangeline Lily). What would be the perfect narrative device to throw into this shop-worn story? A kid, of course, and that’s exactly what the filmmakers introduce, in the form of one of Charlie’s blow-bys from an old girlfriend. Charlie and the kid go through the standard Hollywood playbook for this sort of situation, first being standoffish, then gaining a grudging respect for each other, and yada yada yada. This is the point where we paused the movie, and then found that we just really didn’t care to start it up again. It’s possible that something exciting and unexpected was going to happen later in the film, but I doubt it.

The problem is not that “Real Steel” is a bad movie, it‘s that it isn’t a movie for adults. What I have seen of it is done competently enough that this should be good entertainment for teenage boys. The acting is adequate, the robot action is reasonably fun, and Evangeline Lily is cute as a button. I’ve just seen this story before, and putting it in the context of boxing robots doesn’t really add anything. If a sentimental, predictable movie about a man, a boy, and a boxing robot appeals to you, then give it a go. Otherwise, trust your instincts on this one.

2 stars out of 5

The King’s Speech (2010) ***

Given that Colin Firth is good in literally anything you cast him in, I was not surprised when I finally got around to watching “The King’s Speech” to find it an enjoyable film. For me, however, this movie is burdened by the weight of all the Academy Awards it won, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay. To me it is ridiculous that this talky, old-fashioned story of English Royalty and WWII so completely beat out movies like “The Social Network,” “Black Swan,” “Winter’s Bone,” and “Toy Story 3.” I suppose it just highlights how subjective the awards process is, and how ultimately futile it is to pit works of art against one another, as if they are Olympic athletes performing before judges.

“The King’s Speech” introduces us to a mildly interesting piece of English history. Prince Albert (Colin Firth), second son of King George V, apparently suffered from a stammer. When the king died, Albert’s older brother Edward took the throne, but he soon abdicated in order to marry the divorced, American party-girl Wallace Simpson. This left the throne to Albert, who adopted the name George VI. Of course, even in the 1930’s, the English monarchy was only ceremonial, but one imagines that the King still served as an inspiring symbol for the British people, and with WWII on the way, the people would need inspiration. The burden of providing that fell to Albert and his stammer.

The story of the efforts of Albert and his speech therapist (Geoffrey Rush) to control Albert’s stammer enough for him to make public speeches is an engaging one, even if it does drag a bit at times. Both actors are consummate professionals, and their chemistry is excellent. The film can drag when they are apart, but when they are on screen together, I cannot look away.

I do find it hard, at the end of the day, to take very seriously the impact on history of the head of a ceremonial monarchy having had a speech impediment. Until this film, history certainly seemed to have forgotten the issue. When people think of the beginning of WWII, they don’t think of the king’s speech, they think of the inspiring speeches given by Winston Churchill. Nonetheless, “The King’s Speech” is an inspiring little human story about friendship and overcoming personal challenges.

3 stars

Meet Monica Velour (2010) ***½

If Napoleon Dynamite had a skinnier, dorkier brother, it would be “Meet Monica Velour“’s Tobe (Dustin Ingram.) This guy is such a geek, he practically bites the heads off chickens. Tobe, like most geeks, lives inside his own head, where he thinks about 1930’s music, 1950’s cars, and 1970’s porno flicks. In particular, he is obsessed with a classic-porn actress named Monica Velour. After high school graduation, Tobe has a choice: stay home and finally make a move on the chubby Asian girl who obviously likes him, or go on a road trip to see his idol, Monica Velour, at an Indiana strip club. He chooses the road trip.

Monica (Kim Cattrall) is an attractive, 49-year-old woman, but clearly too old to be in the sex trade. Having saved nothing but a taste for drugs and alcohol from her time as a porn starlet, Monica is still hustling what she has, desperately trying to scrape together money for a lawyer to help her win custody of her daughter. The pathos of her situation doesn’t dim her glamour in Tobe’s eyes, however, and she becomes an essential part of his coming-of-age.

Kim Cattrall should have gotten an Oscar nomination for this role. You remember how impressive Blake Lively was as the drugged-up skank in “The Town”? Kim Cattrall is even better as an aging porn starlet. She gives voice to a woman who has spent her life feeding the fantasies of others and wants some recognition of her own humanity.

I get the impression this film was something of a passion project for Cattrall, who must have been sorely disappointed at its box office failure. As much as I enjoyed the movie, I can see that it just wasn’t made for a mass audience. Dustin Igram plays Tobe with such awkwardness that he is hard to identify with, and his character doesn’t have the kind of goofy kink or catchphrases that made Napoleon Dynamite a star. As good as Cattrall is, her performance runs into a conundrum. Among mass audiences, those who will be interested in a movie about a porn star may not be so interested in a movie about what it’s like for a beautiful woman to get old. That’s a shame, because while this film isn’t nearly as sexy as the premise would suggest, it has surprising depth.

3.5 stars

Y Tu Mama Tambien (And Your Mama, Too) (2001) ****

I recall seeing this back when it came out and won awards. I loved it then, and even more now. It’s just a tremendously good, sexy story. Good, because it has a lot to say about humans and how we are. Sexy, because, well, it has tons of nudity and sex.

Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal play Tenoch and Julio, a couple of Mexico City teenagers freshly graduated from high school. With their girlfriends traveling in Europe for the summer, the guys are left to chase tail and smoke weed. Then they meet Luisa (Maribel Verdu, from “Pan‘s Labyrinth“), the sexy, Spanish wife of Tenoch’s cousin. While the boys are squandering their summer and living easy, Luisa is having a rough time. First she gets some bad news from her doctor, then her husband confesses his infidelity. With all of this weighing her down, Luisa decides to take the boys up on their offer of a trip to a secret, secluded beach. The boys don’t actually know how to get to any such beach. Their offer was just a lame pass at an older woman. That doesn’t really matter to Luisa, however. For the callow youths, the road trip is a lark, with sexy possibilities, but for Luisa it represents leaving everything behind and getting the most out of the time she has left. Being around the boys’ puppyish exuberance distracts her from the things she has to grieve over.

Besides wonderfully convincing performances from the principal cast, the film makes good use of narration to add perspective to some of the scenes and hint at the inner world of the characters, who don’t spend a lot of time sharing their feelings with each other. The narrator also fills in interesting points about the world our travelers are passing through. In one such segment, the trio passes a pair of crosses on the side of the highway, and the narrator explains how a fatal accident occurred there a year prior. The characters don’t even comment or pay attention to the crosses, any more than most of us do when we pass these little monuments. It’s a reminder of the theme of the film, which is that we are all bit players in someone else’s tragedy.

“Y Tu Mama, Tambien” won multiple awards, and deservedly so. Eleven years later it’s still an outstanding film. If you can handle a movie with sex, nudity, and subtitles, then I highly recommend it. (Available on Netflix streaming video.)

4 stars out of 5

Young Adult (2011) ***½

In the world of great villains, you’ve got Hannibal Lecter, you’ve got Auric Goldfinger, and now you have Mavis Gary. Charlize Theron is deliciously, unapologetically evil in her portrayal of Mavis as an emotionally stunted YA fiction writer out to get back her high school sweetheart, Buddy.

Mavis is a hot mess. She cranks out pulpy teenage fiction while living in a filthy apartment. On the outside she looks just like Charlize Theron, which guarantees her at least short-term success with men, but on the inside she is genuinely a bad person, with the emotional maturity of a popular, pretty, high school mean-girl. Which is probably why she is so good at writing novels for teenagers.

An email announcing the birth of her old boyfriend’s first child triggers something, and Mavis returns to her hometown, where she reverts to her old high school self while shamelessly trying to break up Buddy’s happy marriage. It’s like the evil twin of the movie “Sweet Home Alabama.”

The genius of Mavis as a character is how absolutely oblivious she is to other people’s emotions and reactions. It doesn’t occur to her at all that others will be disgusted by her attempt to break up a happy family. One even wonders if she has some form of autism, a possibility alluded to when Buddy’s wife explains her work with autistic kids. (I know, could they have made Mavis’s competition any more of a saint?) Normally in a movie like this, Mavis would go through something traumatic which would make her grow as a person. Then she would live happily ever after with the dorky guy she ignored in high school, the one who’s been under her nose all along. I’m going to provide a spoiler here and tell you that that doesn’t happen in “Young Adult.” Mavis gets a look at the blackness of her soul, stares into the abyss of self-awareness and change, then says, “Nah, that’s not for me. I’ll just keep on being a huge mess.”

This is a fun twist on the rom-com, late-coming-of-age genre, although as with screenwriter Diablo Cody’s other work (see “Juno”), the cleverness feels overly deliberate at times. Even the central premise of Mavis’s defiant refusal to grow up feels a bit arch. What I notice in Cody’s movies and writings (mainly articles for Entertainment Weekly) is a literary cleverness that she doesn’t want anyone to miss. Her work is like a meal at a high-quality chain restaurant like Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. The food is good, but there is just a hint of a flavor of something pre-packaged, something that tastes exactly the same at a restaurant in the next town. Cody’s quips and word coinings are fun, but you do get the sense that they will taste exactly the same in the next movie.

That’s really my only complaint. Otherwise, “Young Adult” is a fun black comedy. Now, when people tell Charlize Theron they loved her in that movie where she played a monster, she’ll have to ask, “Which one?”

3.5 stars out of 5

Gattaca (1997) *****

“Gattaca” is the kind of movie that if you haven’t seen it, people will tell you “You gotta see it!” So I’m telling you, “You gotta see it! It’s awesome!” I could just leave it at that, but I guess that wouldn’t make for much of a review.

The title of this sci-fi noir film comes from the name of a future space agency. Jerome (Ethan Hawke) works at Gattaca, and as the film opens, he is on track to fulfill his dream of going into space. The only hitch is that Jerome isn’t really supposed to be there. He doesn’t have the genes to be an astronaut. In this version of the future, everyone is genetically manipulated to be perfect. Babies come from in vitro fertilization in labs which determine their height, sex, and eye color, and remove any hereditary tendencies to disease. Humans are still capable of normal reproduction, however, and occasionally someone like Jerome gets conceived in the back of a car. There is nothing obviously wrong with Jerome (I mean, he looks exactly like Ethan Hawke!), but in this future the genetically imperfect are termed “invalids” and forced to languish in the lowest tiers of society. I won’t reveal how Jerome manages to move from his janitor’s job to being an astronaut, but he lives in constant danger of being found out. All the tissue testing that is done at Gattaca to verify identity and rule out drug use is accompanied by genetic testing, so Jerome has to be perpetually prepared to cheat these tests. When a murder occurs at Gattaca, the increased scrutiny of the investigation threatens to expose Jerome and ruin his dreams of space.

“Gattaca” is one of those sci-fi movies, like “Bladerunner,” where people wear retro clothing, and it looks cool as hell. They even drive old-style cars, retrofitted with electric engines. The movie itself is very stylized as well; in fact everything about the movie is very cool and crisply done. The shadowed halls of Gattaca echo with the sound of footsteps, and everyone speaks very quietly and properly. Jerome is terse and reserved because he has so much to hide, but his manner fits in perfectly at Gattaca.

The world of “Gattaca” isn’t so very far removed from our own. It’s easy to imagine that within a generation or two, science will make possible the genetic manipulations described in the movie, and that genie will not prove easy to put back in the bottle. Just as parents today try to get their kids into good schools, the parents of the future will want their kids to have the best genes. It will mean an end to babies being born with genetic diseases, and adults will be healthier, too. There also won’t be any short people or people who need glasses, and then one has to wonder if this world might also lack for Beethovens and Einsteins.

The doctors tell Jerome that his genes make it almost certain that he will die of heart disease, but he makes it at Gattaca precisely because he has more heart than anyone else. As he tells his genetically perfect brother, “I didn’t save anything for the trip back.”

The point of “Gattaca” is that perfection isn’t everything, but the movie comes pretty close to perfection. Director Andrew Niccol blends sci-fi and noir in a great story with excellent style and acting (kudos to stars Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law.) It’s an underappreciated gem that deserves a place in your collection.

5 stars out of 5

Easy Rider (1969) ***

One might be tempted to ask what is the point of “Easy Rider”? It’s a poorly constructed film with limited narrative and an unsatisfying ending. And yet it is an icon. I think that for one thing, the movie captured, and maybe helped create, the romantic image of the motorcycle rider as a free spirit. Secondly, I think the movie tapped into a groundswell of disillusionment with how the 1960’s were turning out. After a dramatic decade of consciousness-raising, protest, and national discourse, there still wasn’t room in most of America for anyone to be different.

Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper play Wyatt and Billy, a couple of low-lifes on Harleys. They successfully smuggle cocaine into the U.S. from Mexico, then embark on a cross-country motorcycle trip to New Orleans to spend some of their profits at Mardi Gras. Along the way they have pleasant encounters with a variety of hippy types and unpleasant run-ins with rednecks and cops. They also pick up a kindred spirit, George Hanson (Jack Nicholson), an alcoholic southern attorney and amateur philosopher. He puts into words the quiet dismay simmering in Wyatt as they travel through middle America. During a campfire exchange which pretty much sums of the movie, George gives his most memorable line: “...they’re gonna talk to you and talk to you and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it’s gonna scare ‘em.”

For me, the message of “Easy Rider” is somewhat diluted by its contradictions. In every small town through which the guys pass, they are viewed with suspicion and contempt by the conservative, white locals. Of course, Wyatt and Billy are cocaine smugglers, so it seems that the townsfolk’s profiling is pretty accurate. The violence directed against them is completely unjustified, but still, would you want drug-runners to roll into your town and chat up YOUR teenage daughter?

“Easy Rider” is also a great example of sloppy filmmaking. The scene cuts are abrupt, and there is at least one clear editing error that should never have been allowed to make it onto the final cut. Still, I suppose it’s lucky the film got made at all. Dennis Hopper was reputedly on drugs the entire time, and he was the director! The actors also smoked real marijuana on camera for some scenes. During an LSD-tripping scene in a New Orleans cemetery, there are some interesting lighting effects that it turns out were due to someone opening the film before it had been developed.

All in all, I would say the filmmakers could have done worse. On a reported budget of $400,000 (Pretty cheap, even in 1969.) they made a film that has captured the imagination of millions. For all its flaws, the film does manage to capture the disillusionment of its time, and it puts into stark relief the pathos of a society divided against itself.

3 stars

Drive (2011) ***½

Watching this modern-day noir/heist movie is like eating popcorn. It’s delicious, but you are hungry again in an hour. Still, for a popcorn movie it has a lot going for it.

Ryan Gosling plays the nameless main character, whom we’ll call The Driver. This quiet, perhaps semi-autistic loner spends his time working as a mechanic, stunt-driving for Hollywood movies, and driving get-away cars for heists. He is very good at all three jobs, but he doesn’t seem to have anyone in his life except his employer Shannon (Bryan Cranston), who sets up all his legal and illegal driving gigs. The Driver moves through the world quietly, observing, taking few risks, and operating like a precision machine when he is behind the wheel.

One day The Driver makes the acquaintance of Irene (Carey Mulligan), the cute girl down the hall. Irene is almost as into long, intense silences as The Driver, so they get along great. Spending time with Irene and her son starts to bring The Driver out of his shell, but the interlude ends when Irene’s husband Standard returns home from prison. It turns out Standard is a fairly decent human being who wants to turn his life around, but criminals from his past pressure him to commit another robbery for them, threatening his family. Concerned for Irene, The Driver signs on to help Standard pull off the job. Everything goes to hell, and suddenly The Driver finds himself on the wrong side of the wrong side of the law.

Know right now that “Drive” is extremely violent and bloody. The sheer level of brutality is clearly gratuitous, but in a sense the gore is a metaphor for the changes in The Driver’s life. When he is isolated within himself, his life is clean and neat. Then he gets involved with people, and things suddenly get very messy. We also suddenly get to see what a badass The Driver really is, making me wonder, “Who the hell is this guy?” Unfortunately, that question is never answered. Instead, we get treated to heart-pounding ass-kicking and car chases as The Driver tries to protect his adopted family from rogue gangsters (Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman).

Everything about this film is done with style. The camera-work should set a new standard for noir films. Albert Brooks is affably chilling, and I wish there had been more of him. Likewise, the car chases are superb, as befits the film’s title, but there aren’t enough of them.

In a movie full of restrained performances, Ryan Gosling is so restrained he is practically in a straight-jacket. His part is well-played, but the best scenes are the ones where his self-contained intensity is balanced by someone with a lot of personality. I get that The Driver and Irene are kindred spirits, but the scenes between them tend to drag. I think the solution to that would have been more scenes with Albert Brooks, who absolutely owns the screen every time he appears.

Ultimately, “Drive” is a bit heavier on style than substance, and I was ever so slightly disappointed by it. The action is intense (too intense for some), but I wanted a little more explication of the character of The Driver. Another car chase or two wouldn’t have hurt, either. Still, “Drive” is a nice addition to the modern-day heist genre, fitting in well with movies like “Heat” and “The Town.”

3.5 stars

Moneyball (2011) ***

“Moneyball” is a different kind of sports movie. The theme is familiar: Someone takes a ragtag bunch of misfits that no one else wants and turns them into a successful team. The execution, however, is something new. Most sports movies introduce the inept players, then feature a montage of inspired coaching and practice that turns those losers into champions. “Moneyball” focuses on Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and his geeky assistant Peter Brand (A fictional name given to actual A’s assistant GM Paul DePodesta, played by Jonah Hill), and the montages are of these two going over statistics and mapping probabilities. It can be dry stuff, but it’s a fascinating movie nonetheless, and it‘s based on real life.

The setup begins with the A’s losing their division to the New York Yankees in 2001. It was actually an accomplishment for a small club like the A’s to get as far as they did, considering that they were outspent 4 to 1 by the Yankees. That didn’t really ease the pain, though, when, after the season, the A’s three star players were lured away by richer teams. Left to rebuild with a limited budget, Beane becomes disgusted by the subjective criteria employed by his recruiting scouts. These guys base their recommendations on things like the quality of the sound of the ball hitting a player’s bat, the shape of a player’s jaw, or even how his girlfriend looks. (“An ugly girlfriend means no confidence.”) Beane knows there is something basically wrong with their system, and he has an inkling of how to fix it, but it all gels when he meets Brand, a Yale-educated economics major. Brand has a mathematical model that he believes can identify under-valued players, winning players who can be recruited cheaply, which is just what Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s need.

The two put together an unlikely team, butting heads with everyone else in baseball. They even recruit a washed-up catcher to play first base. Things are rocky at first, and they lose a lot of games, but they stick to their guns, and gradually things turn around. Brand applies his computer models to everything about each player’s game, helping them figure out when to let pitches go, how to get walked more, and ultimately how to get more runs.

Beane and Brand take the A’s farther than they should have gotten, for the poorest team in the league, but they don’t turn the A’s into champions. They do, however, turn baseball on its head, revolutionizing the way teams evaluate talent. I’m no baseball expert, but I’m told that today everybody does it Beane’s way.

Meanwhile, director Bennett Miller has made a rather quiet, interestingly different sports movie. Brad Pitt deserves a lot of the credit for his naturalistic portrayal of Beane. My only complaint is that the film is perhaps a little too subtle. The connection between the statistical analyses and what happens on the field isn’t drawn compellingly enough, leaving the movie feeling a little dry. It’s a good movie, and I think baseball fans will be smitten, but in the end I don’t think “Moneyball” will be a classic sports movie.

3 stars